"Drop and give me 20!”While such corrective physical training has a long andcherished history in the armed forces, CAP strictlyprohibits such corrective physical training in our CadetProgram because of the differences in trainingobjectives and outcomes as well as age, training, andmaturity of our cadets when compared to members ofthe US armed forces,"

I've even seen PJs come back and demand a participant remove their patch if they did not graduate to standards. That patch isn't a participation trophy.

That's a foul if they didn't meet the standard to graduate they shouldn't have received the patch or graduated.

Consider Vanguard... Everything is for sale. (Note. This is an issue for the military, too, so I'm not placing blame. Just saying it's easy [though wrong] to buy a patch after being sent home or simply not graduating.)

"Drop and give me 20!”While such corrective physical training has a long andcherished history in the armed forces, CAP strictlyprohibits such corrective physical training in our CadetProgram because of the differences in trainingobjectives and outcomes as well as age, training, andmaturity of our cadets when compared to members ofthe US armed forces,"

Is "Drop and give me 20!" a synonym for "exercise as punishment"? No, it's a single example and the only one given in the pamphlet. Context matters. That section concludes with "The key is to match the appropriate level of military intensity to the particular training to be given, the trainee’s experience and ability, and the environment in which the training is occurring."

Again, the CPP itself states that inappropriately high levels of training intensity such as "exercise as punishment" do not necessarily meet the regulation's definition of hazing or abuse.

(1) An inappropriately high level of training intensity does not meet this regulation’s definitionof abuse or hazing unless it causes serious physical harm or serious emotional harm. Inappropriate yelling,using exercise as punishment, and creating an overly-stressful environment and other conduct listedin CAPP 52-23 are examples of inappropriately high training intensities that will be treated as boundaryconcerns.

What it says is that "appropriate" intensity is not necessarily hazing. It then goes on to define "exercise as punishment" as "inappropriate".

"(1) An inappropriately high level of training intensity does not meet this regulation’s definition of abuse or hazing unless it causes serious physical harm or serious emotional harm. Inappropriate yelling, using exercise as punishment, and creating an overly-stressful environment and other conduct listed in CAPP 52-23 are examples of inappropriately high training intensities that will be treated as boundary concerns."

(1) An inappropriately high level of training intensity does not meet this regulation’s definitionof abuse or hazing unless it causes serious physical harm or serious emotional harm. Inappropriate yelling,using exercise as punishment, and creating an overly-stressful environment and other conduct listedin CAPP 52-23 are examples of inappropriately high training intensities that will be treated as boundaryconcerns.

What it says is that "appropriate" intensity is not necessarily hazing. It then goes on to define "exercise as punishment" as "inappropriate".

Yes, which part is unclear? Or are you seriously suggesting that behaviors which create "boundary concerns" are "appropriate"?

The whole point of "boundary concerns" is you're not supposed to engage in them.

"f. Boundary Concern. A boundary concern occurs when a member’s action might not be considereda best practice (see chapter 2) without meeting the definition of abuse or hazing. CAPP 52-23contains examples of these best practices and boundary concerns."

Also, I never said "PT as punishment" was "hazing", nor does behavior have to be "hazing" to be prohibited.*** Edit: per RST training, it is see below...

52-10 uses "boundary concern" specifically to call "knock it off" on behaviors that can quickly become violations, while still allowing for members to make mistakes. That doesn't make a given BC behavior or practice "authorized" it just means you won't be kicked out the first time you get caught.

"(2) Methods. The fitness program encourages units to provide drills, games and other activitiesthat promote physical fitness. Effective 1 September 2014, commanders will schedule time for cadet fitnesstraining; simply administering the fitness tests described below is not sufficient (see CAPP 52-18, CadetPhysical Fitness Program, for suggested activities). Physical exercise in the Cadet Program will be usedonly to improve cadets’ physical fitness while increasing confidence, teamwork and determination. Fitnesstraining will not be used as a form of punishmentor as a vehicle to teach remedial discipline".

CAPP 52-18, 5http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_018_501C183A14D19.pdf"Prohibitions. Physical exercise in the Cadet Program will be used only to further the goal of improving physical fitnesswhile increasing confidence, teamwork, and determination. Commanders, activity directors, and ranking cadets willnot use physical training as a form of punishment or remedial discipline."

"Why not push-ups?Most leaders of cadets understand completely that under CAP’s interpretation of the DoD definition ofhazing, incentive physical training (sometimes referred to as “push-ups for punishment”) is strictlyprohibited for the purpose of the CAP Cadet Program."

"On the other end of the spectrum, some leaders of cadets are under the impression that we can neverdo push-ups in the Cadet Program. This is a common misconception. Push-ups can be used as a toolboth for physical fitness training (PT), and to build teamwork. However, beware of cause and effect.Scheduling a random PT session as a result of a failed barracks inspection still violates the CPP, nomatter how tight knit the team becomes in the process."

Yes, which part is unclear? Or are you seriously suggesting that behaviors which create "boundary concerns" are "appropriate"?

Not at all. You said "What it says is that 'appropriate' intensity is not necessarily hazing" which is just incorrect. I twice quoted the section that says inappropriate behaviors may not be considered hazing.

Quote from: CAPR 52-10

f. Boundary Concern. A boundary concern occurs when a member’s action might not be considered a best practice (see chapter 2) without meeting the definition of abuse or hazing. CAPP 52-23 contains examples of these best practices and boundary concerns.

"Might not be considered a best practice"? No "wiggle room" there! Because there are no not-so-best-practices in Civil Air Patrol right?

Also, I never said "PT as punishment" was "hazing", nor does behavior have to be "hazing" to be prohibited.

Fair enough. As a matter of principle I don't disagree with your stance on this. I was just responding to your rather absolute post saying there's no "wiggle room" in the regs and my take is that this whole new "boundary concern" thing introduces a gray area that maybe didn't exist before. The fact that CAPR 52-10 replaces the term "boundary violation" with "boundary concern" bears that out. I don't know anything about pjoc but maybe it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to make reference to "appropriate training level intensities" that are tougher than CPFT but do not rise to the level of "PT as punishment".

As indicated in the quotes above, 52-10 isn't the only defining reg in this case, that's wherea lot of people get stuck.

52-16 specifically prohibits PT as punishment outright as a concept, hazing or no, and supporting documents such as the RST pamphlet (nonsense about "Ps" vs. "Rs" notwithstanding")defines "PT as punishment" as hazing, so prohibited from that vector as well.

There's no way anyone who had the required training for an NCSA or encampment could stand up in ahearing room and say "That's a gray area" with a straight face, other then on the general principle that CAP regs are a mess, which they are.

"Why not push-ups?Most leaders of cadets understand completely that under CAP’s interpretation of the DoD definition ofhazing, incentive physical training (sometimes referred to as “push-ups for punishment”) is strictlyprohibited for the purpose of the CAP Cadet Program."

"On the other end of the spectrum, some leaders of cadets are under the impression that we can neverdo push-ups in the Cadet Program. This is a common misconception. Push-ups can be used as a toolboth for physical fitness training (PT), and to build teamwork. However, beware of cause and effect.Scheduling a random PT session as a result of a failed barracks inspection still violates the CPP, nomatter how tight knit the team becomes in the process."

As I've demonstrated, those highlighted statements are not consistent with the CPP itself. The CPP should be modified to reflect the above and "PT as punishment" should not be mentioned in the context of "boundary concerns".

From our perspective, the policy seems clear: We do not permit the use of push-ups (or other forms of exercise / calisthenics) for disciplinary purposes in our cadet program.

"Drop and give me 20," however, almost never amounts to hazing, but will at least be a boundary concern and an opportunity for counseling and re-training on appropriate techniques.

I agree that the policy could be made plainer and easier to find, and we will do that during the current CP publication re-engineering effort. The policy is unlikely to change, but we can all agree it should be easy to understand, and easy to find in our publications.